linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] riscv: dts: spacemit: Add OrangePi RV2 board device tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250718100732-GYA700698@gentoo>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 18:07:32 +0800
From: Yixun Lan <dlan@...too.org>
To: Vivian Wang <wangruikang@...as.ac.cn>
Cc: Hendrik Hamerlinck <hendrik.hamerlinck@...mernet.be>, robh@...nel.org,
	krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
	aou@...s.berkeley.edu, alex@...ti.fr, palmer@...belt.com,
	skhan@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	spacemit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] riscv: dts: spacemit: Add OrangePi RV2 board
 device tree

Hi Vivian,

On 17:10 Fri 18 Jul     , Vivian Wang wrote:
> Hi Hendrik,
> 
> On 7/18/25 16:43, Hendrik Hamerlinck wrote:
> > Add initial device tree support for the OrangePi RV2 board [1], which is
> > marketed as using the Ky X1 SoC but has been confirmed to be 
> > identical to the SpacemiT K1 [2].
> >
> > The device tree is adapted from the OrangePi vendor tree [3], and similar
> > integration can be found in the Banana Pi kernel tree [4], confirming SoC
> > compatibility.
> 
> This isn't particularly crucial, but I wonder if we can do something
> similar to a jh7110-common.dtsi arrangement, where most of the boards
> sharing similar designs can also share devicetree source files.
> 
> Easier said than done, probably, but I think it should be possible by
> just comparing the vendor dts files.
> 
> Again this doesn't need to block this patch.
> 
Sure

> Yixun: I'm assuming you'll be handling this. What do you think about a
> k1-common.dtsi?
> 

Sharing dtsi file for similar boards is generally fine, I saw a few
other SoC maintainers have done the same..

In the practical cases, we have to evaluate and plan carefully, it
should be manageable to support fixed number of boards for one file,
but would be nasty if expect one common dts file to cover all boards..

Anyhow, I think we can revisit this idea and having incremental patch
later, it's not the problem for now

Thanks for the suggestion

-- 
Yixun Lan (dlan)